They would argue that, sure, but I don’t think it’s that simple.
If what you’re saying is really true, if us being able to derive a phylogenetic tree really tells us nothing about how those differences arose, then why don’t we believe it was by magical poofing?
I’m pretty sure there’s a real argument to be made here about what is and isn’t a reasonable inference from the data, and therefore if someone is going to say that phylogenies make just as much sense(are just as well explained) as products of magical poofing, then that amounts to a rejection of the method of historical inference in biology: the positing of causes observed in the present as explanations for how things that existed in the past - through certain mechanisms and processes - changed into their present forms.
And there are things that can be done with phylogenetic trees, when the data is good enough, that really can indicate whether certain changes are consistent with biochemistry. The fact that this can be done in many cases just makes it all the more absurd when someone would continue to argue against phylogenetic trees as indicators of real evolutionary change (as opposed to indicators of magical poofing).
It’s entirely plausible that he cares more about sowing doubt about evolution than he cares about convincing anyone of common descent, and is just suffering some rather typical cognitive dissonance.
Getting back to this question, my go to response is “How do you measure design and how do you distinguish designed from not designed?” I want something more than “I know it when I see it.”
I have searched quite a lot and could not find ANY indication that Buggs accepts common descent. In fact I couldn’t find any indication of what the man actually believes about anything. I’ve only ever found him stating reasons why evolution is either dubious, or why there could have been a first human couple.
Buggs is a young earth creationist, confirmed by an e-mail received in 2007 from a friend of his. While at Oxford, he was involved in the Woodstock Road Baptist Church. The pastor at this church is a Dr Keith Stokes who is on the Council of Reference of Biblical Creation Ministries.
I don’t know how reliable that is, so can anyone point me to something where Buggs states what he actually thinks is true about life on Earth? What is related to what? How old is it? When did it first appear, did it evolve and how?
I never said it was “nothing”. And of course we don’t believe in magical poofing because it’s a highly unparsimonious hypothesis for which there is no evidence. Nobody said it was reasonable, just that Behe etc. do not therefore reject phylogenetic inference and reconstruction. Nor is anyone saying that phylogenies in general result from magical poofing. But it’s true that we have no good way of reconstructing what happens between nodes.
Is this really in question? His point was not that phylogenetics is an illusion or is impossible, just that it’s hard. (Though I believe he exaggerates.) He’s an evolutionary biologist. He uses phylogenetics in his work. Have you looked at his web site?
I see no indication that he wants to sow doubt about evolution. The idea that he’s a YEC doesn’t look credible; it would require constant cognitive dissonance during his entire scientific career. Have you looked at his CV?
Given the shear volume of claims, arguments, books, etc that the ID movement has produced over the last thirty-odd years, it might help get the ball rolling if you gave some specificity of your own as to which of ID’s claims you feel are most in need of specific rebuttal. Then the scientists among us can point you to what they feel are the best rebuttals of those claims. Rebutting the entirety of ID’s 30 year output in a single thread cannot help but be intimidating – if for no other reason than deciding where to start.
It is possible he has ensured there is no public record of his views on these matters, in order to avoid falling victim to the well-known conspiracy in the Scientific Establishment that targets people who are silly.
Thanks – that’s exactly the kind of thing I’m looking for.
Explaining to people exactly what is expected of them if they’re going to challenge a scientific theory or establish a new one is a good way to approach it.
Hey that’s just great! Imagine, after 20 years of the Intelligent Design Movement, and no one has yet thought of asking them this. It’s quite wonderful that we can now simply ask this question and, once they realize they have no answer, the movement will disappear and they will all become committed evolutionists.
They don’t have to do it in general, they just have to do it some times. And this goes well beyond Buggs and Behe anyway. The rejection of these methods, for anything but the most simple or recent things, is pretty much universal, and as soon as things get a little bit more complicated even Buggs and Behe invent reasons why magical poofing had to happen instead of mutations. So they’re rejecting the idea we can use phylogenetic trees to infer that evolution(rather than magic) occurred in the past, and that evolution is the explanation for why sequences of similar genes are not identical.
For the most part that’s true, though I’m sure you know there are some exceptions. But even when we can’t tell the order in which the differences between nodes occurred, there can still be good reasons for thinking they occur as a result of all the usual biochemical causes of mutation.
Yes it’s in question. I am questioning it. This kind of extreme cognitive dissonance (or outright dishonesty) is not without precedent. Jonathan Wells went and got a PhD in cell and molecular biology with the explicit purpose of trying to undermine evolution and “overthrow Darwinism”. I don’t think his studies changed his mind. Jonathan McLatchie is an actual PhD evolutionary biologist, a Christian apologist, and he rejects common descent.
It is entirely possible Buggs is crazy in the exact same way these people are. The fact that he can publish papers on phylogenies of trees tells us nothing about what he really believes about the world.
Yes it is. You note that all your supposed precedents are freely admitting that they’re creationists. You have no evidence that Buggs is a creationist, certainly nothing comparable. So why are you making this assumption? He’s an IDer, not a creationist. That’s the hypothesis that best fits the available data.
I’m not sure what you mean by “evolution” here. If we define it as change in allele frequencies, and God personally causes a mutation or several simultaneous mutations, is the subsequent increase in frequency of that divinely caused mutation evolution or is it not? My personal inclination would be to consider anything happening in a context of descent within a population to be evolution, regardless of the causal mechanism. As long as the poofing is confined to poofing mutations, it’s evolution. If God orchestrates the changes in frequency subsequent to the mutation, that’s still evolution. And properly managed, it would be undetectable too.
Do any of them claim to be OEC themselves? I’ve never heard of anyone saying they’re OEC who isn’t actually creationist. I’ve heard of people saying they’re creationists in such cases, but not specifically OEC.
Old-Earth Creationists
In addition to the Young-Earth Creationists described above, many students are likely to be Old-Earth Creationists, Christians who do not interpret parts of the Bible (particularly the early chapters of Genesis) literally.
Some of these are mainstream neo-Darwinists. Evolution is part of God’s plan, but follows consistent rules which stem from genetics (and biochemistry) and other causal effects (i.e. Miller, 1999 ).
Others believe in an old Earth, but without evolution. According to these belief systems, God created all living things without the involvement of random but predictable forces like mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection.
Some students are willing to accept evolution for all organisms except human beings, arguing that Adam and Eve were divinely created.
Does Miller self-identify as OEC? I always assumed that he was a Theistic Evolutionist, or similar (a category missing from that article). The article appears to conflate OEC with TE.
I think it all depends on how one defines terms. I know some people who define creationism as any belief that God or some other divine being played any role at all, no matter how small, even though someone with that belief would not necessarily describe themselves as a creationist. Similarly, anyone who believes the earth is more than 10,000 years old could technically be considered “old earth,” even if they don’t identify as such.